CAMP PHOSPHATE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARION COUNTY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an interlocutory appeal from an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding is not available, but will treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari if a justiciable issue is shown.
Camp Phosphate Company sought an interlocutory appeal from an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding. Marion County moved to dismiss the appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Order Of Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Camp Phosphate Company by this interlocutory appeal seeks review of an order of taking entered in an eminent domain proceeding. Appellee Marion County has moved to dismiss upon the following grounds, viz.: 1. That said order is not final, and does not relate to venue or jurisdiction over the person of defendant-appel-lee, and 2. That this interlocutory appeal is frivolous. The third ground alleged relates to the merits of the cause which we need not explore here.
In Wilson v. Jacksonville Expressway, 110 So.2d 707 (1959), this court held that an order of talcing entered in an eminent domain proceeding pursuant to statutory authority is an action at law, and an interlocutory appeal therefrom is not available other than from questions concerning venue or jurisdiction over the person. We adhere to that decision in every respect. However, here, Appellant in its brief and by oral argument has urged this court to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certio-rari in the event we hold that same was improvidently taken. We so hold.
Since we find that a justiciable issue meriting immediate review has been shown, we exercise our discretion by treating the instant interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Section 59.45, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and Couse v. Canal Authority, January 31, 1967, 194 So.2d 301.
From an examination of the record we conclude that the second and third grounds of defendant’s motion are without merit.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seadade Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 232 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…property by Florida Power & Light Company which was entered in the trial court. See Clark v. Gulf Power Co., Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 368; Couse v. Canal Authority, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 301; and Camp Phosphate Co. v. Marion County, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 302. Florida Power & Light Company filed a petition seeking to condemn certain real property owned by Seadade, together with a Declaration of Taking. Fla.Stat. § 74.-031, F.S.A. It sought fee simple title to a strip of real property, owned by Seadade,…
-
Trien v. Dade Cnty., 222 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…d delay in prosecuting an appeal therefrom would cause material injury for which remedy by appeal from the final judgment would be inadequate. Couse v. Canal Authority, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 301; Camp Phosphate Co. v. Marion County, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 302; Georgia Southern and Florida Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting R. R. Co., Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 19; State Road Dept. v. Bainbridge, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 609. The facts in the present case do not indicate, however, that delay in appealing would mat…
-
Adams v. Dade Cnty., 202 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…relief called for they fall clearly within the general area of equity procedure. The rule was given application in Wilson v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 707; and Camp Phosphate Company v. Marion County, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 302. Tested against that rule the statutory proceeding provided for in the circuit court in this instance is a law action, of which interlocutory orders not relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person are not appeal-able. Rule 4.2 F.A.R., 32 F.S.A…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 110 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Couse v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 194 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)